Subscribe To

Friday, January 6, 2017

Finger Food

It really is funny to see blue states turning all
pro-slavery all of a sudden.Don’t
believe me?California
just hired Eric Holder for various expected legal battles with Trump.

Mr. de León [Democratic leader of
the Senate] said he expected California to challenge Washington — and defend
itself from policies instituted in Washington — on issues including the
environment, immigration and criminal justice.

What does this have to do with slavery?Sounds like nullification and tenth amendment
stuff.Dare I say the words: STATE’S
RIGHTS!For years we have been told this
is code for rednecks who want to bring back slavery.Turns out that bluenecks are joining the party.

My two cents?If you
ever thought it worthwhile to support the government on any issue, chip in a
few nickels to the California State’s
Rights Fund (I just made up the name).Anything that decentralizes power is of benefit to the libertarian
cause.

Libertarian Party
Minus Libertarian Equals…What, Exactly?

I have many years ago given up any thought that the
Libertarian Party might actually hold to a message that is libertarian.But sometimes the stupidity reaches new highs
(or is it lows).

Marc Clair interviewed Libertarian
Party National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark.If you ever doubted that the only objective
of the LP is more money, this interview will disabuse you of this stupid
idea.If you ever believed the message
mattered more than the number of votes, you will find this an impossible view to
hold after spending a few minutes listening to Nicholas.

Now, the LP is free to have whatever objectives it likes; my
only point is that I have never heard it so plainly stated.

I won’t bother with the denigrating comments made about
Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul (beginning around minute 25 / 26); such comments
are mandatory if you want to be an acceptable beltway libertarian.Throw out a few strawmen and half-truths and
anything is possible.

I will only comment on one point, a statement from the party
chair: “State’s rights is not a libertarian position.”

Now, I will agree with this statement if one is arguing from
the position of libertarian-anarchist theory; as there is no room for “states”
in such a theory, there can be no such thing as “state’s rights.”But Nicholas, focused on winning votes in
order to place libertarian candidates in positions of state a federal
government, likely isn’t arguing from such a position.

So all I can say is….read the above tidbit again on blue
being the new red.

What does Nicholas think libertarianism in this world
means?Every decentralization of power
means more choice at a lower political level.While I myself prefer this to continue all the way down to the family
level, it cannot be denied that a decentralization to 50 states offers more
liberty than conglomeration under one.

Some libertarians really are stupid.

As an aside…I was equally disappointed in the interviewer,
who knows better about the value Ron Paul brought to his own life, let alone to
the exponential growth of interest in libertarian theory and Austrian economics
due to Ron Paul’s two runs as a republican.One can find more respectful ways to state disagreement on specific
issues; one also might point out when the interviewee says things that logically
make no sense.One need not argue
endlessly, but one need not agree with gusto, either.

Hillary’s Last Stand

Bill and Hillary plan to attend Trump’s inauguration.You see, the vote count challenges didn’t work;
the changing Electoral College votes thing didn’t work; the we won the popular
vote story didn’t work.Perhaps Hillary
wants to be nearby in case some bad luck befalls Trump moments before his hand
goes on the Bible.She can then rush
onto the stage and save the republic.

Speaking of bad luck befalling Trump…

Trump the Blabbermouth

So much talk about Trump not being in control of the words
coming out of his mouth; so much concern that he will be rash in his decision
making; so much fear that he will push the wrong button in a moment of rage.

The truth is that those making such accusations don’t fear
any of the things they say they fear.What
they fear is getting outed.What they
fear is Trump saying something like “the intelligence is bogus” when, in fact,
the intelligence is bogus.What they
fear is Trump saying “the media is lying to you” when, in fact, the media is
lying to you.

Of course, Trump has to know that such talk will put him in
the crosshairs…literally.

If ever there was a man and a circumstance for a president
to go public questioning the JFK story, this is the man and this is the
circumstance.First and foremost, it
will be an act of self-preservation; any dastardly deed that befalls him
thereafter will be plainly seen as an inside job – whether it is or not.

Second, it will completely change the dialogue – on everything.A majority of Americans don’t buy the
official JFK story.They are just
waiting for someone in authority to say so.Trump has demonstrated a desire to change the dialogue on many things…unfortunately,
not everything and not always to the
good…but….

12 comments:

If you would like further clarification on my position, it's available here: https://www.facebook.com/nsarwark/videos/949466738520014/

Libertarianism preferences the individual rights over state control. When a government violates individual rights, the libertarian position is on the side of the individual. This remains the case whether the government is Federal, state, or local.

Dr. Paul's position on DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act sides with governments violating the individual rights of their citizens and is thus not libertarian.

Thank you for the link and comments. I will watch the video in the next day or so and offer further thoughts on this then.

In the meantime, your clarifying statement does not move me. Decentralization of political power means more choice; we don't get perfect in a world occupied by humans, so the next best thing is more political choice. There is nothing more libertarian than this when it comes to our political life.

As for Dr. Paul, in 2008 and 2012 he ran as a republican, not a libertarian; this point was ignored by both you and Marc in the interview. Had he run as a libertarian he would have received criticism from me for the handful of positions such as those you cite. However, even as a republican, he ran on a more libertarian position than did the recent Johnson / Weld ticket.

It is OK to say you are after votes; with this as the criteria you could get Bernie Sanders on the ticket in four years. It will be a gold mine.

My recollection is that Ron Paul's position on marriage is that it should be a private institution. Government at any level should have nothing to do with it just as government should have nothing to do with education.

I thought the Constitution Party sounded more libertarian during this cycle... not that anyone bothered to notice. I pulled the lever for Darrell Castle, left the rest of the fields blank, and went home to eagerly await the fruits of my momentously important act. Heh heh.

"They told me if I voted for Goldwater, he would get us into a war in Vietnam. Well, I voted for Goldwater and that's what happened." – William F. Buckley

I see your point about using JFK as an opening wedge that will resonate with a great number of Americans. With a little thought I have to agree that this is the right starting point since it is familiar across several generations.

But you're right: focus and get the dialog started. Trying to raise all of these topics simultaneously with a populace that has been oblivious to most or all of it will just make anyone look utterly insane.

Sadly, it is not a swamp that needs to be drained, it's an ocean. But a small hole in the dike is a start, at least. JFK might be just the right hole. You can't lance a boil without making some kind of hole.

But the totality is just too monstrous to absorb. You feel like you've fallen into a Lovecraftian universe where you live, unaware, in a little bubble of light and civilization that is separated by a thin veil from a chaos controlled by Cthulhu and his buddies. Only a Lovecraftian looney would try to make a rent in that veil, right?

Almost twelve years ago, my wife sent the following letter to the head of the local Libertarian party in the county where we live:

------

XXXXX County Libertarian Party:

The postcard I received from the XXXXX County Libertarian Party invites me to come and hear a speaker talking about, “Libertarians: Marketing To Republicans.” This tells me everything I need to know about the local XXXXX County Libertarian Party.

Prostituting the ideals and ethics of the Libertarian Platform to pander to Republicans shows the level of corruption and degeneracy of the once noble Libertarian ethos.

You people are beneath contempt and I suggest you crawl back under the Republican rock you crawled out from.

I will thank you to bother me no further with your mailings.

-------------------

As is obvious, the current L.P.'s watered down platform and ambiguous standards of the principals running for office are nothing new. Years ago when the Libertarian Party developed support and name recognition, all manner of unscrupulous shysters, frauds, and confidence men jumped on the L.P. bandwagon, seeing the newly formed party as a quick road to political success and prosperity. These interlopers likely figured that there was no reason to fight for a spot in the Republican or Democrat space when the Libertarian's were desperate for political functionaries. Thus it has happened that the various Libertarian local parties became as controlled and corrupted as the rest (some might claim this was done by design to stultify and neuter the L.P. as a potential alternative political resource.)

The original L.P. platform was a gem of succinct and simple good sense, and the early proponents and spokesmen of the L.P. wore a mantle of dignity and purity. Take a look at the early writing of L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz (who ran as presidential candidates from the L.P. of Arizona) for examples of libertarian ideas discussed in practice as opposed to theory, and see if you can find the video of Andre Marrou, running as the L.P. presidential candidate in 1992, on C-SPAN seen giving a speech and smashing a book on the podium (or maybe he was pulling a Khrushchev by pounding his shoe on the lectern) shouting "this is bullshit... this is bullshit" in rhythm to punctuate his statements. Men like these with their passion and commitment are true and honest mainstays of Libertarian ideals. We likely won't see their kind again.

Meanwhile, don't be dismayed by the charlatans and riff-raff posing as Libertarian champions; like everything else in American politics it has devolved into nothing more than a caricature and a distorted reflection of a decaying system. True Libertarian ideals are only found in a person's heart, mind, and soul, and that's where they matter.

I can't find the post that was referenced in the email that I received, but it was about marriage.Marriage was originally a religious rite, which was recorded in the family bible and not taxed or regulated by any civil government. That is the way it would have stayed had the federal government obeyed the first amendment, and the subordinate state's constitutions had comparable and obeyed clauses. Unfortunately, We the People have become, long ago, too dumbed down to understand what an establishment of religion is. Anyone who cannot recognize that something that started as a religious rite IS an establishment of religion should be denied the vote, and the opportunity to contaminate the polity of the county.